From robert_weir@us.ibm.com Wed Apr 4 06:27:28 2007
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_3ur4kjSRk+jejWSV2BpiUQ)"
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:27:16 -0400
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Processing DIS 29500 (OOXML)
In-reply-to: <46139A2B.9030002@durusau.net>
To: patrick@durusau.net
Cc: Dave Welsh ,
Doug Mahugh ,
Frank Farance , Jerry Smith ,
Jon Bosak ,
"Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E" ,
"Price, Lynne" ,
"Mason, James David (MXM)" ,
Norm Walsh , Rex Jaeschke ,
Richard Barber ,
Ron Silletti ,
Steve Carton ,
Tim Schoechle
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL03/WTF/M/Lotus(Release
6.5.5FP3|February 7, 2007) at 04/04/2007 09:27:17 AM,
Serialize complete at 04/04/2007 09:27:17 AM
X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_3ur4kjSRk+jejWSV2BpiUQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
A lot to think of here.
To your list I'd add a private web page or ftp site for posting large
documents, such as related ISO standards, or even the DIS 29500 materials
linked to in this ballot, which I understand is different than the version
submitted to JTC1 originally. So we all need access to the current
materials.
As for public comments, we definitely should think about how to do this
efficiently. I know that other NB's were inundated with comments, often
to their business or personal email addresses. If we can avoid the chaos
while at the same time being responsive to the public, this would be
preferred. Whether we want it or not, public comments will come. The
question is whether we want to take steps now to make this a more orderly
process?
Are you able to get to ISO_CommentsTemplate.zip, which is the template for
entering comments? I'd recommend that we submit our final comments in ODF
if possible. We can map the data model of the template to conventions for
the email comments, such as your "pd:1:11.3.1 Alternative Format Import
Part" example, and generate the ODF document automatically from the email
comments.
-Rob
___________________________
Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group
email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/
Patrick Durusau
04/04/2007 08:29 AM
Please respond to
patrick@durusau.net
To
Frank Farance , Jon Bosak , "Price,
Lynne" , Dave Welsh , Doug
Mahugh , Rex Jaeschke ,
Steve Carton , Jerry Smith
, Norm Walsh , Richard Barber
, Robert Weir ,
"Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E" , Tim
Schoechle , "Mason, James David (MXM)"
, Ron Silletti
cc
Subject
Processing DIS 29500 (OOXML)
Greetings!
As I noted in my post yesterday, we have until June 17, 2007 to prepare
the recommended position on DIS 29500.
Having slept on it I have some more specific suggestions on how we
should proceed.
1. Obviously we need a mail reflector for V1 members. I will talk to
Frank Farance about this but I do have a question:
Should we have a public archive of our discussions?
My personal opinion is yes since the ISO standards process is supposed
to be "transparent." I take that to mean that the discussions in that
process should be available to anyone who wants to see them.
2. Do we need a public list for the submission of comments from members
of the public?
OASIS has such lists and I can attest that they have been helpful any
number of times in finding bugs in standards.
I am less certain that we need an email list in the traditional sense
because feelings are running high enough on all sides to make an open
list too much traffic to be useful.
On the other hand, a widely publicized webpage for comments that forces
choice of a part and section, so that the comments can be automatically
sorted could be really useful. I don't have any illusions about our
committee being able to review every nook and cranny of DIS 29500.
The results from such a webpage should be public for the same reasons as
the proposed discussion list for the committee.
3. Comments by V1 Members
I have reviewed the membership list and at least at this point we all
appear to have unique initials.
My suggestion on comments is that we use the subject line to contain our
initials, followed by a colon, followed by the part, colon and then the
section number and heading of the portion of OOXML we are commenting on.
Thus,
pd:1:11.3.1 Alternative Format Import Part
That will be very helpful in terms of marshalling all the comments and
responses on a particular section for discussion.
I don't have a definitive date on the OOXML topic map that my handlers
are preparing under my direction and I don't want to wait until that is
certain one way or the other to setup mechanisms for our discussions. If
the software proves useful for the committee, we can always import any
data we have generated by that point anyway.
4. Processing comments and developing the US recommended position
I think we need a two-stage process for the development of the US
recommended position.
a. We need to process the comments and decide if we accept the comments,
without deciding on what impact any particular comment has on the
ultimate recommended position. That will enable us to develop a basis on
which to formulate our ultimate position.
b. After processing of our comments, then we use those comments as the
basis for our recommendation on the US position.
5. Sharing V1 comments with other NBs.
The formulation of the recommended US position may or may not include
comments. However, I would like to suggest that as we develop our
position on particular comments, I would like to share those with other
NBs. Given the size and complexity of the proposal, being aware of our
comments may cause other NBs to develop comments on areas that we have
not had time to consider.
6. Evaluation and adoption of comments
I really don't know how many comments we are going to generate as V1
members nor how many comments will appear from members of the public.
There are several ways we can process the comments.
Although I distrust wikis, it might not be a bad idea to post the
comments to a wiki where only V1 members could vote and we can both
comment as well as indicate our vote of yes or no on each issue. From
what I understand of Drupal, it has the ability to control who votes and
to show the results of the votes.
In the absence of the soon to appear topic map software that might be a
better processing model than what I have suggested above.
Noting that in any event I will have to use the INCITS comment template
to prepare whatever comments are accepted by the committee to be
included with the ballot results reflecting our ultimate position.
I am not opposed to having weekly teleconferences, say on Fridays, to
discuss a given set of comments.
7. Recommendation (yes, you were looking for this part)
I suspect that as we near the end of the process we are going to need a
face to face meeting to go over the final set of comments accepted by
the committee and to develop our recommendation.
Not knowing how many comments we will accept or the nature of those
comments, it is hard for me to say how long such a meeting would last.
I do think that we need to have teleconferencing facilities so any
members who cannot physically attend can be present for the meeting.
Noting that the ballot is due on 17 June 2007, might we consider having
a face to face starting on the 14th or 15th of June?
By that point we should have a set of comments that have been agreed
upon by V1 and I assume that we will want to refine those and develop
our final recommendation.
Thoughts? Comments?
Hope everyone is having a great day!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@Durusau.net
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
--Boundary_(ID_3ur4kjSRk+jejWSV2BpiUQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
A lot to think of here.

To your list I'd add a private web page
or ftp site for posting large documents, such as related ISO standards,
or even the DIS 29500 materials linked to in this ballot, which I understand
is different than the version submitted to JTC1 originally. So we
all need access to the current materials.

As for public comments, we definitely
should think about how to do this efficiently. I know that other
NB's were inundated with comments, often to their business or personal
email addresses. If we can avoid the chaos while at the same time
being responsive to the public, this would be preferred. Whether
we want it or not, public comments will come. The question is whether
we want to take steps now to make this a more orderly process?

Are you able to get to ISO_CommentsTemplate.zip,
which is the template for entering comments? I'd recommend that we
submit our final comments in ODF if possible. We can map the data
model of the template to conventions for the email comments, such as your
"pd:1:11.3.1 Alternative Format Import Part" example, and generate
the ODF document automatically from the email comments.

As I noted in my post yesterday, we have until June 17, 2007 to prepare
the recommended position on DIS 29500.

Having slept on it I have some more specific suggestions on how we
should proceed.

1. Obviously we need a mail reflector for V1 members. I will talk to
Frank Farance about this but I do have a question:

Should we have a public archive of our discussions?

My personal opinion is yes since the ISO standards process is supposed
to be "transparent." I take that to mean that the discussions
in that
process should be available to anyone who wants to see them.

2. Do we need a public list for the submission of comments from members
of the public?

OASIS has such lists and I can attest that they have been helpful any
number of times in finding bugs in standards.

I am less certain that we need an email list in the traditional sense
because feelings are running high enough on all sides to make an open
list too much traffic to be useful.

On the other hand, a widely publicized webpage for comments that forces
choice of a part and section, so that the comments can be automatically
sorted could be really useful. I don't have any illusions about our
committee being able to review every nook and cranny of DIS 29500.

The results from such a webpage should be public for the same reasons as
the proposed discussion list for the committee.

3. Comments by V1 Members

I have reviewed the membership list and at least at this point we all
appear to have unique initials.

My suggestion on comments is that we use the subject line to contain our
initials, followed by a colon, followed by the part, colon and then the
section number and heading of the portion of OOXML we are commenting on.
Thus,

pd:1:11.3.1 Alternative Format Import Part

That will be very helpful in terms of marshalling all the comments and
responses on a particular section for discussion.

I don't have a definitive date on the OOXML topic map that my handlers
are preparing under my direction and I don't want to wait until that is
certain one way or the other to setup mechanisms for our discussions. If
the software proves useful for the committee, we can always import any
data we have generated by that point anyway.

4. Processing comments and developing the US recommended position

I think we need a two-stage process for the development of the US
recommended position.

a. We need to process the comments and decide if we accept the comments,
without deciding on what impact any particular comment has on the
ultimate recommended position. That will enable us to develop a basis on
which to formulate our ultimate position.

b. After processing of our comments, then we use those comments as the
basis for our recommendation on the US position.

5. Sharing V1 comments with other NBs.

The formulation of the recommended US position may or may not include
comments. However, I would like to suggest that as we develop our
position on particular comments, I would like to share those with other
NBs. Given the size and complexity of the proposal, being aware of our
comments may cause other NBs to develop comments on areas that we have
not had time to consider.

6. Evaluation and adoption of comments

I really don't know how many comments we are going to generate as V1
members nor how many comments will appear from members of the public.

There are several ways we can process the comments.

Although I distrust wikis, it might not be a bad idea to post the
comments to a wiki where only V1 members could vote and we can both
comment as well as indicate our vote of yes or no on each issue. From
what I understand of Drupal, it has the ability to control who votes and
to show the results of the votes.

In the absence of the soon to appear topic map software that might be a
better processing model than what I have suggested above.

Noting that in any event I will have to use the INCITS comment template
to prepare whatever comments are accepted by the committee to be
included with the ballot results reflecting our ultimate position.

I am not opposed to having weekly teleconferences, say on Fridays, to
discuss a given set of comments.

7. Recommendation (yes, you were looking for this part)

I suspect that as we near the end of the process we are going to need a
face to face meeting to go over the final set of comments accepted by
the committee and to develop our recommendation.

Not knowing how many comments we will accept or the nature of those
comments, it is hard for me to say how long such a meeting would last.

I do think that we need to have teleconferencing facilities so any
members who cannot physically attend can be present for the meeting.

Noting that the ballot is due on 17 June 2007, might we consider having
a face to face starting on the 14th or 15th of June?

By that point we should have a set of comments that have been agreed
upon by V1 and I assume that we will want to refine those and develop
our final recommendation.